MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413303386 · doi:10.1061/jccof2.cceng-5337

Erratum for “Development Length of Small-Diameter Basalt FRP Bars in Normal- and High-Strength Concrete”

2025· article· en· W4413303386 on OpenAlexaff
Decebal Michaud, Amir Fam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites for Construction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceFibre-reinforced plasticComposite materialBasaltBasalt fiberStructural engineeringGeotechnical engineeringGeologyEngineeringFiberSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors found typographical errors in the original paper that require correction in Tables 1 and 2 and Fig. 5.In Table 1, the beam with 55 MPa design concrete strength, 6 mm d b , and 40.7 L e × d b should read a beam size of B2.In Table 2, the bar axial stresses for Specimen IDs 75-8-44, 75-8-100, 75-8-144, 75-8-178, and 75-8-233 should read 567, 780, 817, 857, and 867 MPa, respectively.In Fig. 5, the y-axis moment values were incorrect.Corrected versions of these tables and this figure are provided herein.Additionally, measured values for the shear span and midspan moment arm were used for the analysis in the paper rather than the nominal values shown in Fig. 3 of the paper.These values are added to Table 2 herein for clarity.The authors regret the errors and note that the errors do not affect the rest of the manuscript; all findings and conclusions presented in the paper remain the same.To preserve the published version of record, these details are corrected only in this erratum.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.036

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composites for ConstructionSame topicStructural Behavior of Reinforced ConcreteFrench-language works237,207